Chuck Lever wrote:
On Aug 13, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Michael Ströder wrote:
Chuck Lever wrote:
In order to use the NFS URL format, I think we would be compelled to
correct RFC 2224, probably by issuing an RFC that supersedes it.
Why?
My impression is that may be required by the IETF citation
Excellent. Thanks for following up.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghe...@suretec.co.uk
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in
I've been trying to get slapd-meta to failover using multiple URIs but
can't get it to work.
Initially I was using 2.4.26, but having seen the report in ITS#7050
I've now built 2.4.32 but the problem is still there as far as I can
tell. This bug was quashed in 2.4.29 according to the change
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
An: openldap-technical@openldap.org;
Von:Liam Gretton liam.gret...@leicester.ac.uk
Gesendet: Di 14.08.2012 15:18
Betreff:slapd-meta doesn't continue with multiple uri's
I've been trying to get slapd-meta to failover using multiple URIs but
On 14/08/2012 14:52, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
You are. The above is creating three targets, one pointing to host1, one
pointing to host2 and one pointing to host3. The rest of the
configuration is associated to the last target, the others are sort of
dangling. A correct configuration
On 14/08/2012 14:52, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
You are. The above is creating three targets, one pointing to host1,
one
pointing to host2 and one pointing to host3. The rest of the
configuration is associated to the last target, the others are sort of
dangling. A correct
On 14/08/2012 15:28, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
On 14/08/2012 14:52, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
You are. The above is creating three targets, one pointing to host1,
one
pointing to host2 and one pointing to host3. The rest of the
configuration is associated to the last target, the
On 14/08/2012 15:28, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
On 14/08/2012 14:52, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
You are. The above is creating three targets, one pointing to host1,
one
pointing to host2 and one pointing to host3. The rest of the
configuration is associated to the last target, the
On 14/08/2012 16:06, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
If I wasn't clear, I changed the config as you suggested. The debug
output I posted was from that configuration. The server never attempts
to contact anything other than host1.
Did you try stopping host1 in between client operations? I did
On 14/08/2012 16:06, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
If I wasn't clear, I changed the config as you suggested. The debug
output I posted was from that configuration. The server never attempts
to contact anything other than host1.
Did you try stopping host1 in between client operations? I
On 14/08/2012 17:18, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
If I remove host1 after the LDAP server has started, the debug
output is at least different. It's attempting to contact host1,
failing, doubling the timeout and trying again continuously, never
attempting to try host2 or host3.
The timeout
JET JETASIK wrote:
I am investigating 2 factor authentication in which mostly they are radius
server actually.
My problem is that most of my applications relying on LDAP auth only.
I am trying to figure out on how to use
openldap/contrib/slapd-modules/passwd/radius.c
I did compile
On 08/13/12 15:26 +0400, sergio wrote:
Hello.
Is it possible to ask openldap not to encode magic tokens for
pass-through authentication? Now ldapsearch shows:
userPassword:: e1NBU0x9dXNlcm5hbWVAcmVhbG0K==
Notice the double colons.
but I'd like to see:
userPassword:: {SASL}username@realm
On 08/13/12 12:15 +0200, Gilles Tual wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if I could use OpenLDAP backend to simulate a virtual
directory for a project.
Is it possible ? If yes, is there documentation on it, or help (i'm not a
pro on LDAP and virtual directory).
Could you provide some specific
On 14/08/2012 17:18, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
If I remove host1 after the LDAP server has started, the debug
output is at least different. It's attempting to contact host1,
failing, doubling the timeout and trying again continuously, never
attempting to try host2 or host3.
The
Hi,
Not sure if I should post this here or with the CentOS mailing list (I am hoping
they are monitoring this). I am using a stock CentOS 6.3 32-bit installation
with
# rpm -qa | grep openldap
openldap-devel-2.4.23-26.el6_3.2.i686
openldap-2.4.23-26.el6_3.2.i686
rwsm...@bislink.net wrote:
Hi,
Not sure if I should post this here or with the CentOS mailing list (I am
hoping they are monitoring this). I am using a stock CentOS 6.3 32-bit
installation with
# rpm -qa | grep openldap
openldap-devel-2.4.23-26.el6_3.2.i686
On 08/15/2012 12:03 AM, Dan White wrote:
userPassword:: e1NBU0x9dXNlcm5hbWVAcmVhbG0K==
Notice the double colons.
Yes, it shows that the value is base64 encoded.
but I'd like to see:
userPassword:: {SASL}username@realm
Which would not exist here.
This is my mistake of course, I mean:
On 14/08/2012 21:57, masar...@aero.polimi.it wrote:
bind-timeout and network-timeout have specific, connection-level meaning.
Just timeout seconds (you can make it search-specific if you don't
want it to affect other operations, using timeout search=seconds.
Setting timeout doesn't solve the
Dan White wrote:
On 08/15/12 00:21 +0700, JET JETASIK wrote:
I am investigating 2 factor authentication in which mostly they are
radius server actually.
Can you describe what kind of two factor authentication you are looking to
support?
It is hardware(token) OTP, response only.
My
Howard Chu wrote:
JET JETASIK wrote:
I am investigating 2 factor authentication in which mostly they are
radius server actually.
My problem is that most of my applications relying on LDAP auth only.
I am trying to figure out on how to use
21 matches
Mail list logo
